So the solution is to outlaw hugely demanded platforms? I find most of this discussion crazy talk....Regulation should be a light touch not an Fn jack hammer.

It's a lot more complex than that. There are a number of tests/questions to answer in deciding if breaking up a monopoly is warranted. The big one here is privacy, or consumer welfare.

But there are also difficult questions to answer around competition. Are Facebook and Google really keeping a level playing field with respect to things like news, video and other services? These guys are getting heavy into the content game, and we've seen with cable companies and wireless carriers some pretty underhanded anti-competitive practices to favor their own content.

Most economists would agree that companies using their size to stifle competition is normally not a good thing for consumers.

So the solution is to outlaw hugely demanded platforms? I find most of this discussion crazy talk....Regulation should be a light touch not an Fn jack hammer.

It's a lot more complex than that. There are a number of tests/questions to answer in deciding if breaking up a monopoly is warranted. The big one here is privacy, or consumer welfare.

But there are also difficult questions to answer around competition. Are Facebook and Google really keeping a level playing field with respect to things like news, video and other services? These guys are getting heavy into the content game, and we've seen with cable companies and wireless carriers some pretty underhanded anti-competitive practices to favor their own content.

Most economists would agree that companies using their size to stifle competition is normally not a good thing for consumers.

I think most of the arguments you are making are theoretical and based on fear. I don’t see where competition has been stifled or consumers have been hurt at all. In fact, I would say it has been the opposite. The data privacy issues are a different matter. And we probably need some type of new government agency to provide some guidelines for data governance. Big tech doesn’t belong within the purview of existing agencies that are now almost 100 years old.

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

I think most of the arguments you are making are theoretical and based on fear.

I would have gone with "based on economics and history", but ok.

SteelPro wrote:

I don’t see where competition has been stifled or consumers have been hurt at all. In fact, I would say it has been the opposite. The data privacy issues are a different matter. And we probably need some type of new government agency to provide some guidelines for data governance. Big tech doesn’t belong within the purview of existing agencies that are now almost 100 years old.

But privacy is a huge, huge issue. Google and Facebook have basically a 24/7 picture of your life. Regulation alone will not be enough. You're actually making an argument for more govt intervention than I am. You're essentialy arguing for internal chinese walls, while I'm saying a different company in a different location is far superior in protecting the information you're trying to with regulation alone.

Competition hasn't been stifled? How would you know? They buy up all their competition. That's a textbook example of how monopolies maintain their monopoly.

People have willingly given away their data. The data collected by Cambridge Analytical had a disclaimer saying that their data might be sold to 3rd parties.

IT IS FACEBOOK'S BUSINESS MODEL! If you use Facebook, your data can be used and sold. If you wanted to pay FB for the right to use their APIs, you could harvest the same data. all you need is a bit of social engineering to make a survey that people will fill out.

I have more of a complaint about Equafax and their ilk. Not protecting private data should be a death sentence for companies. It has become so common that everyone just shrugs and posts a picture of their breakfast to twitter.

_________________To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.- Henri Poincaré

People have willingly given away their data. The data collected by Cambridge Analytical had a disclaimer saying that their data might be sold to 3rd parties.

IT IS FACEBOOK'S BUSINESS MODEL! If you use Facebook, your data can be used and sold. If you wanted to pay FB for the right to use their APIs, you could harvest the same data. all you need is a bit of social engineering to make a survey that people will fill out.

I have more of a complaint about Equafax and their ilk. Not protecting private data should be a death sentence for companies. It has become so common that everyone just shrugs and posts a picture of their breakfast to twitter.

People have willingly given away their data. The data collected by Cambridge Analytical had a disclaimer saying that their data might be sold to 3rd parties.

IT IS FACEBOOK'S BUSINESS MODEL! If you use Facebook, your data can be used and sold.

True, but it's practically a public utility. Give them your data or be a social misfit. You absolutely should have an option of paying them not to use or release your data....but that's a problem for their model.

Well, since Kodiak thinks that the options are either to sign up to Facebook and handover data or be a social misfit, I’d say the social engineering is working quite nicely for them in respect of at least some people.

I’m a misfit: never had and never will have a social media account of any kind. Simply uninitersyed in spending time on such a platform. Unless you count SteelerFury.

But yeah: it’s fucking creepy.

_________________#CdnSteelerFanStrong

Orangesteel wrote:

We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.

People have willingly given away their data. The data collected by Cambridge Analytical had a disclaimer saying that their data might be sold to 3rd parties.

IT IS FACEBOOK'S BUSINESS MODEL! If you use Facebook, your data can be used and sold.

True, but it's practically a public utility. Give them your data or be a social misfit. You absolutely should have an option of paying them not to use or release your data....but that's a problem for their model.

Facebook is in no way a public utility. The ISPs would become utilities ( and should ) well before facebook or google.

_________________To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.- Henri Poincaré

The ISPs already are regulated like utilities. What I don't understand is all the fucking mergers after the ATT breakup in 1984.

not so fast my friend. Ajit Pai ( corporate crony) would like that to be repealed for his masters. Title II would give them the same regulations as the phone and gas companies. Title I allows them to do almost whatever they want ( as long as they report it). It is like being able to cheat on your wife as long as you tell her.

_________________To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.- Henri Poincaré

Well, since Kodiak thinks that the options are either to sign up to Facebook and handover data or be a social misfit, I’d say the social engineering is working quite nicely for them in respect of at least some people.

I don't have a Facebook account, nor do I post on Twitter. However, I'm also not 15-20 years old. I think any college student rejecting social media would be basically a complete recluse. Nothing to do with social engineering or brainwashing - Facebook is the social hub for millenials and younger. I don't see how that's debatable.

Sure seems to be a fair number of school shootings driven by being bullied or excluded on social media.

What I don't understand is all the fucking mergers after the ATT breakup in 1984.

60 Minutes story last night on this very subject [Google]. Basically said the Justice department has ignored monopolies for 20 years, RARELY blocking mergers or buyouts.

Google has gobbled up over 200 companies in 2 decades. The ones they didn't buy, they destroyed [or so the EU regulators say].

Personally, there IS more competition among ISP's and substitutes. And Google/Facebook/Netflix have been piling on and smearing the ISP's to distract from the fact the real danger is they control a ton of content. The sheeple eat it up about what the ISP's may or may not allow them to access....while being competely ignorant of how the content kings are basically gatekeepers of what you see on the internet. As I've said many times in this thread, that is FAR more dangerous than "fast lanes" (which actually has merit).

Well, since Kodiak thinks that the options are either to sign up to Facebook and handover data or be a social misfit, I’d say the social engineering is working quite nicely for them in respect of at least some people.

I don't have a Facebook account, nor do I post on Twitter. However, I'm also not 15-20 years old. I think any college student rejecting social media would be basically a complete recluse. Nothing to do with social engineering or brainwashing - Facebook is the social hub for millenials and younger. I don't see how that's debatable.

Sure seems to be a fair number of school shootings driven by being bullied or excluded on social media.

Actually most of my students are into apps I’ve never heard of. Facebook is akin to MySpace for sone of my more recent students.

My point is not really diminished by your response. It is perhaps strengthened. The notion that you cannot live without social media apps without being an outcast simply means these companies have won a cultural purchase. You say that’s not engineering. Fine, but a rose by an alternate name will still smell as sweet.

As far as Facebook being the primary social hub, honestly, i’m not sure that’s true any more. My students rely on a lot of apps I have never heard of. I think Facebook in college is for old high school chums. They use other apps for college social life. Brave new world!

_________________#CdnSteelerFanStrong

Orangesteel wrote:

We could have ended the game there and Tomlin’s band of assholes let them back in.

What I don't understand is all the fucking mergers after the ATT breakup in 1984.

60 Minutes story last night on this very subject [Google]. Basically said the Justice department has ignored monopolies for 20 years, RARELY blocking mergers or buyouts.

Google has gobbled up over 200 companies in 2 decades. The ones they didn't buy, they destroyed [or so the EU regulators say].

Personally, there IS more competition among ISP's and substitutes. And Google/Facebook/Netflix have been piling on and smearing the ISP's to distract from the fact the real danger is they control a ton of content. The sheeple eat it up about what the ISP's may or may not allow them to access....while being competely ignorant of how the content kings are basically gatekeepers of what you see on the internet. As I've said many times in this thread, that is FAR more dangerous than "fast lanes" (which actually has merit).

As does Amazon, as does Disney, As does Comcast/NBCU, as does Time Warner (possibly to be owned by AT&T), as does CBS, as does Viacom, as does FOX, as well as Apple dipping their toes into content...

There are a few potential mergers upcoming such as Disney or Comcast bid to buy Fox, CBS and viacom to merge again, etc... But that still leaves a lot of different players controlling content. So yes, maybe content mergers need to be scrutinized tougher going forward. But there are still a lot of different players controlling content. I don't see the power being that concentrated.

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

Well, since Kodiak thinks that the options are either to sign up to Facebook and handover data or be a social misfit, I’d say the social engineering is working quite nicely for them in respect of at least some people.

I don't have a Facebook account, nor do I post on Twitter. However, I'm also not 15-20 years old. I think any college student rejecting social media would be basically a complete recluse. Nothing to do with social engineering or brainwashing - Facebook is the social hub for millenials and younger. I don't see how that's debatable.

Sure seems to be a fair number of school shootings driven by being bullied or excluded on social media.

Actually most of my students are into apps I’ve never heard of. Facebook is akin to MySpace for sone of my more recent students.

As far as Facebook being the primary social hub, honestly, i’m not sure that’s true any more. My students rely on a lot of apps I have never heard of. I think Facebook in college is for old high school chums. They use other apps for college social life. Brave new world!

This is true. My 14 and 11 yr old daughters think of Facebook as outdated and for their parents. The Myspace comparison is apt. They use Snapchat and Instagram- that's all their friends talk about anymore

Yeah, the idea that Facebook is the end all be all of social media is dubious. But as a third party authentication platform it has some significant reach. I know quite a few people that have Facebook accounts not for social networking but because it simplifies authentication with numerous services, apps, apis, etc.

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

Yeah, the idea that Facebook is the end all be all of social media is dubious. But as a third party authentication platform it has some significant reach. I know quite a few people that have Facebook accounts not for social networking but because it simplifies authentication with numerous services, apps, apis, etc.

Never ever sign into a page with Facebook account. Those buttons give the website permissions to get your data. If they pay more they get more of your data. Just for logging into a page.

_________________To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.- Henri Poincaré

Yeah, the idea that Facebook is the end all be all of social media is dubious. But as a third party authentication platform it has some significant reach. I know quite a few people that have Facebook accounts not for social networking but because it simplifies authentication with numerous services, apps, apis, etc.

Never ever sign into a page with Facebook account. Those buttons give the website permissions to get your data. If they pay more they get more of your data. Just for logging into a page.

That might mean something to me if I gave a shit. Seriously, I expect anyone and everyone is selling my data. I’m not surprised by it nor overly bothered by it. Convenience always has a cost. Could be monetary, or in this case sacrificing some privacy. Honestly, I’m less concerned about data being sold as I am the government forcing businesses to hand data over to them.

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

Ever since Facebook’s (FB) massive Cambridge Analytica scandal broke, Apple (AAPL) CEO Tim Cook has made no bones about his distaste for the social media giant’s mishandling of its users’ data.

Now, Cook and company are taking their own steps to jam up social media sites’ web-tracking tools by blocking them in both the upcoming macOS Mojave and iOS 12 versions of Apple’s Safari browser. In other words, the war of words between Facebook and Apple seems to have just gone hot.

So a few weeks ago 60 Minutes had a piece on this very topic....there was a Republican congressman saying "Facebook and Google have 84% of internet ad revenue....and the sheer size of their data mining operations is effectively a barrier to entry - no startup can hope to compete with them".

And just last Sunday was they had an interesting piece on some whiz kid in Trump's campaign with how he micro-targeted potential voters on Facebook (very similar to what the Obama campaign did in 2012). Thankfully capitalism means they'll willingly take money from both parties, but what if they put politics first and decided to tip the scales in some manner?

Speaking of which, there’s lots of chatter about breaking up the tech giants: Amazon needs to spin off its cloud business. Apple should split into a hardware and software company. Facebook has to jettison WhatsApp. And Google, well, it should voluntarily reduce its presence in advertising.

Like GE once did, Apple and Amazon each represent around 1% of the U.S. economy. But only Apple is in the Dow. It’s a pretty good bet that in 10 years, and certainly in 20, these companies won’t be the dominating players they are today. I can identify the seeds of destruction already planted at Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook. No need to break them up; the market will take care of that for us. Just ask GE.

_________________Neal Huntington on what he's been told by his bosses about $$$: "We've got assurances we're going to be able to continue to do what we've done."

Speaking of which, there’s lots of chatter about breaking up the tech giants: Amazon needs to spin off its cloud business. Apple should split into a hardware and software company. Facebook has to jettison WhatsApp. And Google, well, it should voluntarily reduce its presence in advertising.

Like GE once did, Apple and Amazon each represent around 1% of the U.S. economy. But only Apple is in the Dow. It’s a pretty good bet that in 10 years, and certainly in 20, these companies won’t be the dominating players they are today. I can identify the seeds of destruction already planted at Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook. No need to break them up; the market will take care of that for us. Just ask GE.

Doubly interesting when you consider the financial impact to the Gubmit....I imagine USPS takes a big hit if Amazon buys UPS and funnels more business thru it.

Amazon I don't really have much issue with. Sure, there's a lot of information in your purchases and the frequency of, but they don't have a 24/7 picture of you (and your friends) like Google and Facebook. Although I've never looked at the permissions for the Amazon app on my phone!

Well, since Kodiak thinks that the options are either to sign up to Facebook and handover data or be a social misfit, I’d say the social engineering is working quite nicely for them in respect of at least some people.

I don't have a Facebook account, nor do I post on Twitter. However, I'm also not 15-20 years old. I think any college student rejecting social media would be basically a complete recluse. Nothing to do with social engineering or brainwashing - Facebook is the social hub for millenials and younger. I don't see how that's debatable.

Sure seems to be a fair number of school shootings driven by being bullied or excluded on social media.

Actually most of my students are into apps I’ve never heard of. Facebook is akin to MySpace for sone of my more recent students.

My point is not really diminished by your response. It is perhaps strengthened. The notion that you cannot live without social media apps without being an outcast simply means these companies have won a cultural purchase. You say that’s not engineering. Fine, but a rose by an alternate name will still smell as sweet.

As far as Facebook being the primary social hub, honestly, i’m not sure that’s true any more. My students rely on a lot of apps I have never heard of. I think Facebook in college is for old high school chums. They use other apps for college social life. Brave new world!

And this backs up your point that Facebook isn't so hip with the youngest generation and it may lose it's grip soon as the leading social media platform. Monopoly???? I think not.